Here's a idea for a new head coach. He's been a assistant for a few years now and was considered by many as the natural replacement for Phil Jackson when he retired. We all saw what happened there. Now he's the ast coach for one of the best defensive teams in the league, the pacers. Vogel has talked about how much he's done for guys like George and Stephenson ad nauseum. Wonder what he could do with Ross or even Demar? I've long said the Raps need more young, creative minds in the brain trust and Shaw would fit that to a T.

Just a thought. Discuss away.

Dude! I think he would be a VERY good fit here. I would LOVE to have him as our coach. He was mentor'd by Phil "10 more rings than you" Jackson. He knows what it takes to win - he has 5 rings (3 as a player - 2 as a coach). What more can we ask for?? The ONLY thing I would demand is that Bryan Collangelo gets his walking papers BEFORE Brian Shaw comes on board. I don't like the fact that Bryan C tries to tell his coaches how to coach (Bargnani).

I wish we could get Brian Shaw! You're sooooo right - we need a young creative coach ala Frank V / Scott Brooks.

If you remove the 0-16 start in Frank's final season with the Nets, he has a .500 coaching record. Let's face it -- the Nets were horrible that year and went on to lose 70 games. In addition to the 0-18 start of the season, they had another 4 more streaks consisting of 8 or more losses in a row. Terrible team featuring Devin Harris as its best player.

So really -- why did we pick Dwane Casey? Mainly because of Dallas' championship run which was anchored by a future defensive player of the year and the fact that Spoelstra's didn't know how to adjust to the zone.

With all due respect, I don't feel that comparing winning percentages of one coach of team "A" vs another coach with team "B" is a valid assessment of a coach's abilities. Since Casey never coached a team with close to the talent of guaranteed HOFer Kidd running the offense that included Vince still in his prime, Richard Jefferson in his prime and very productive, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Having said that, coaches do tend to get evaluated more on what have you done lately, rather than in the distant past, much like the rest of the world. Note that at the time of hire, in Casey's last year of head coaching, he got fired mid way through the season with a record was .500 (20-20) record. As far as coaching horrible teams go, that team consisted of KG and a bunch of scrubs and misfits. After dumping Casey, that same team went on to complete the season with a 12-30 (.286). Is that some indication that coach Casey made a huge difference toward winning as a head coach? Sure looks like it. He moved on to Dallas as an assistant and by all accounts had a huge impact on a championship team.

On the other hand, Frank did okay in NJ for a few years, with an inherited team lead by Kidd, Vince, Jefferson, but what happened as soon as Kidd was traded? That year they were 24-27 (.470) when Kidd was traded. They finished out the year with a 10-21 (.322) record. The next year his team, while still having Vince on his team, had a 34-48 (.415) record, followed the next year by his 0-16 start before getting canned. So is his winning percentage seriously inflated by having Kidd running the offense (the likes of which Casey has never had) or his "proven winner" ways? Sure looks like it was all about having a HOF PG running the show, rather than his coaching abilities.

His record with the Pistons is 46-74 (.383). So, as in what have you done lately, as per my earlier point about how Frank has done without a HOF triple double producing PG running the offense, over a span of 5 years his record is 90-149 (.376). "Proven winner" or having lucked out for a few years with Kidd covering his ass?

As far as "So really -- why did we pick Dwane Casey? Mainly because of Dallas' championship run which was anchored by a future defensive player of the year and the fact that Spoelstra's didn't know how to adjust to the zone."

Somehow I think the evaluation and decision making process went a little deeper than that.

The knock on Shaw has been his insistence on running the triangle in his interviews.

Do you think Toronto has the personnel to run this?

Nope, not with DeRozan at the 2. This is less reliant on the PG for traditional pass-first duties and I believe that Lowry should be great with that. Gay is mobile enough. However, Demar's high-schoolesque ball handling skills makes this system useless in TO. Where do I draw this conclusion? See Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant's ball handling. The triangle offense relies on a mobile back court that can move and swing the ball side to side while maintaining the formation. At this point, I have more faith in Ross' ability to handle the rock than Demar's.

“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King

I really don't like some of Casey's decisions. His Xs and Os are questionable at times. However, the bigger issue here is BCs power over his coaches. He needs to simply be served his walking papers and I really want to see Casey coach. He's had his run. Casey's option was picked up for next season. I want to see what he can do without Colangelo.

“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King

I personally think we need to hire a proven, experienced head coach instead of hiring assistants who we think can be good head coaches. O'Neill, Mitchell, Triano, Casey- none of these guys have much of a track record as head coaches in the NBA. I know that there are insistences where assistants end up becoming great head coaches, ie. Thibs and Vogel but as raps history shows, we need to go out and hire someone with more experience to lead our group of talent.

With all due respect, I don't feel that comparing winning percentages of one coach of team "A" vs another coach with team "B" is a valid assessment of a coach's abilities. Since Casey never coached a team with close to the talent of guaranteed HOFer Kidd running the offense that included Vince still in his prime, Richard Jefferson in his prime and very productive, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Having said that, coaches do tend to get evaluated more on what have you done lately, rather than in the distant past, much like the rest of the world. Note that at the time of hire, in Casey's last year of head coaching, he got fired mid way through the season with a record was .500 (20-20) record. As far as coaching horrible teams go, that team consisted of KG and a bunch of scrubs and misfits. After dumping Casey, that same team went on to complete the season with a 12-30 (.286). Is that some indication that coach Casey made a huge difference toward winning as a head coach? Sure looks like it. He moved on to Dallas as an assistant and by all accounts had a huge impact on a championship team.

On the other hand, Frank did okay in NJ for a few years, with an inherited team lead by Kidd, Vince, Jefferson, but what happened as soon as Kidd was traded? That year they were 24-27 (.470) when Kidd was traded. They finished out the year with a 10-21 (.322) record. The next year his team, while still having Vince on his team, had a 34-48 (.415) record, followed the next year by his 0-16 start before getting canned. So is his winning percentage seriously inflated by having Kidd running the offense (the likes of which Casey has never had) or his "proven winner" ways? Sure looks like it was all about having a HOF PG running the show, rather than his coaching abilities.

His record with the Pistons is 46-74 (.383). So, as in what have you done lately, as per my earlier point about how Frank has done without a HOF triple double producing PG running the offense, over a span of 5 years his record is 90-149 (.376). "Proven winner" or having lucked out for a few years with Kidd covering his ass?

As far as "So really -- why did we pick Dwane Casey? Mainly because of Dallas' championship run which was anchored by a future defensive player of the year and the fact that Spoelstra's didn't know how to adjust to the zone."

Somehow I think the evaluation and decision making process went a little deeper than that.

Solid points. I'm not denying that it helps to have good players. But you can't discredit a coach based on his team. How's Mike D'Antoni doing right now with his HOF lineup? A lot of people like to look at Phil Jackson and say he had a couple of the best players of all time on his teams.

Detroit has faaaaaaar less talent than we do and Frank has piloted them (so far) to a nearly identical record that Casey has done with significantly better talent. But what we're talking about here is the potential of looking at a more experienced coach to replace Casey. Simply put -- we could have done that at the time of his hiring.

When we hired Lenny Wilkins, he was the most experienced ever (of all Raptors coaches).. he was the winningest coach at the time. But we all knew what we were getting -- this wasn't a "prolific" coach by any stretch. He was just someone who had tons of experience under his belt. For this reason I'd rather have Frank over Casey.

I'd be down for anyone at this point as long as we aren't attempting the exact same thing every time.

I've got nothing against McMillan, although I'd prefer a defensive mind. Still -- he's been to the playoffs 11 times out of 12 years as a player, and 5 times out of 12 years as a coach. You can't say he hasn't had experience, that's for sure.

he's one of those coaches that seems to get the best out of his players, which is something we could really use. like, you look at some of those portland teams he had and how the hell did they always make the playoffs?

i guess he lost the team a couple years ago but in all fairness they were a bunch of dickheads

After retiring in 1998, McMillan stayed with the Seattle franchise, earning a place as an assistant coach. He held this role until 2000, when he was named interim coach of the Sonics. Although the team missed the playoffs during his first year as coach, he provided a major turnaround after the franchise got off to a miserable start that year, and he was hired as head coach for the next 2001-02 campaign. McMillan led the clubs to the playoffs in his second year before back-to-back mediocre seasons. In his final year as Sonics coach, McMillan led the team to a Northwest Division title in 2005.
After 19 years with the Seattle organization, McMillan left Seattle on July 7, 2005 to become the head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers. He took over a team riddled with cap problems and off-the-court drama, but steadily calmed the waters in Portland.

like, if this doesn't scream "imagine what he could do for the raptors, hire him immediately" i don't know what does

Remember less than a year ago when everyone was praising Casey and thought he was the savior? A lot of you dudes are impatient and turn pretty quick.

Sorry but Casey isn't the problem with this team.

A year ago the Raps were delivering on the promise of "pound the rock" and defense first basketball with few expectations.

This year defense is but an afterthought, accountability is practically non-existent, youth is benched for scrubs, the same lack of execution in crunch time has appeared time and time again, and "pound the rock" has been replaced by "play in the sand."

But yeah, total impatience this year based on realistic or not expectations that have not been met combined with a 5th consecutive season of no playoffs.

I've seen quite a few people misinterpret the "pound the rock" as some sort of style of play. That's wrong. His message with that is the idea that you have to keep pounding (trying, working, developing, improving) toward the goals of improving as individuals and as a team, no matter how frustrating it can be when it appears progress isn't being made. The message is that if you keep "pounding the rock", just like a mason doesn't break the bolder into workable size pieces right away, and it appears no progress is being made, if he keeps at it, he'll eventually be successful, one pounding blow at a time.

I hope the players understand the concept better than most fans. I'm sure they do.

I've seen quite a few people misinterpret the "pound the rock" as some sort of style of play. That's wrong. His message with that is the idea that you have to keep pounding (trying, working, developing, improving) toward the goals of improving as individuals and as a team, no matter how frustrating it can be when it appears progress isn't being made. The message is that if you keep "pounding the rock", just like a mason doesn't break the bolder into workable size pieces right away, and it appears no progress is being made, if he keeps at it, he'll eventually be successful, one pounding blow at a time.

I hope the players understand the concept better than most fans. I'm sure they do.

You are right.

The failures of "pound the rock" has nothing to do with "playing in sand".

Instead of pounding the rock with a hammer, Casey has resorted to pounding the rock with strawberry twizzlers. Some progress was made last year but this year the rock is lathered with red sugary stripes.

Accountability? Nope.

Culture change? Hardly.

Developing? Alan Anderson and Andrea Bargnani.... negative.

Rebuilding? Sure... just with no financial flexibility and draft picks - oh wait, that is Colangelo.

I'm intrigued with Brian Shaw and it stems from my respect for the triangle. Honestly, I can see Jonas flourishing in it. He keeps his hands high, skilled big man who just needs coaching to hone his skills.

The system is so unique but if you think about it, it's designed perfectly to counter anything. Pressure release, weak side 2 man game, strong side triangle. If executed properly, it's basically unstoppable.

We certainly don't have the perfect team for it and a lot has to be changed in terms of personnel, but it's a great system that has endless options. I like the fact that it positions players in areas where they can be effective in and it limits unnecessary actions.

The concept is old school but it's a timeless offense. You can add options that you can flow to off the triangle. I say give the systems shot.

Kobe did want him as the replacement, after all. That should say a lot about the trust in the system and in him as a coach.

I'm intrigued with Brian Shaw and it stems from my respect for the triangle. Honestly, I can see Jonas flourishing in it. He keeps his hands high, skilled big man who just needs coaching to hone his skills.

The system is so unique but if you think about it, it's designed perfectly to counter anything. Pressure release, weak side 2 man game, strong side triangle. If executed properly, it's basically unstoppable.

We certainly don't have the perfect team for it and a lot has to be changed in terms of personnel, but it's a great system that has endless options. I like the fact that it positions players in areas where they can be effective in and it limits unnecessary actions.

The concept is old school but it's a timeless offense. You can add options that you can flow to off the triangle. I say give the systems shot.

Kobe did want him as the replacement, after all. That should say a lot about the trust in the system and in him as a coach.

The ironic thing about considering Shaw is that I've felt for a long time that Bargnani could thrive in the triangle offense. I think his passing is underrated, especially for a big. The triangle would keep him floating around the foul line, moving up and down the key, ensuring that he doesn't just sit idly at the 3pt line taking flat-footed 3's. A Bargnani that is forced by the system to play inside, take much higher % shots, utilize his passing abilities and stay closer to the basket for potential rebounds... certainly addresses lots of typical complaints about his inefficient offensive game (of course the triangle offense does nothing to improve his defense).

I'm not suggesting Shaw to keep Bargnani, just pointing out the irony.